Found---handwritten suicide notes. Sheila's ?

[Caroline]

Its in the book - I am not going to read it all again . like everything else it has been discussed on here before .

The fact is there were recorded incidences of violence with Sheila .

So I was just letting the OP know that the post was not quite correct.

I have just read what Colin said in his book (page 144 - 145) and actually, he said the opposite. He said she had a fiery temper BUT not physically violent. He said Sheila would never be physically violent to anyone and takes the blame for most of what was initially said in the newspapers and a lot of what he said was down to anger and grief.

[Jan]

I have just read what Colin said in his book (page 144 - 145) and actually, he said the opposite. He said she had a fiery temper BUT not physically violent. He said Sheila would never be physically violent to anyone and takes the blame for most of what was initially said in the newspapers and a lot of what he said was down to anger and grief.

I stand suitably corrected , but he did say the bit about killing each other. Plus he was the one person who did not seem to stand up for Sheila and say she could not ha pave possibly done it. I thought he said violence under the surface . Those words definitely ring a bell. But it is some time since I have read the book. She also herself was afraid she would be violent towards the twins.

[Caroline]

“During the call the phone went dead. Sheila suddenly became hysterical, mumbling about the phone being bugged. She became like someone possessed ranting and raving. She was striking herself and beating the wall with her fists. I tried to calm her but she did not seem to hear me. I became extremely frightened not only for her but for myself. She kept talking about the Devil and God, and stated that God was sitting opposite her and unlike what her step mother said he in fact loved her. I contacted her ex-mother in law and asked her to come round. This aggravated the situation and Sheila became even more violent and abusive. Her mother in law called and found a prescription for Sheila’s drugs and asked me to get them for her. I went to the chemist and when I retuned I was met at the front door by the mother in law who was leaving. She told me Sheila had kicked her out. I went in and tried to pacify Sheila but was unable to do so. I became extremely concerned for my own safety. I telephoned Sheila’s Doctor and a short while later one of her partners arrived. Sheila refused to let him examine her shouting that he was trying to poison her. By this time she had become completely irrational. The doctor eventually left without being able to do anything. Being unable to do anything I contacted another doctor who arrived shortly afterwards. Again he was unable to do anything because Sheila would not allow him near her.

He wrote a short note which he handed to me and asked me to hand to Sheila’s GP and gave her a stronger drug, whilst the first doctor was there Tara’s husband called to collect his daughter who was staying with Sheila. I had arranged for this as I felt something nasty might happen. I was extremely scared for everyone’s safety. At that time I felt that Sheila may use violence towards someone."

Freddie goes on to say that after Sheila came out of hospital, he discussed that episode with her and she could not remember anything about it and that she believed he had made it up. He also recalled that during the psychotic episode he witnessed, Sheila could not recognise anyone who came to the flat and “believed everyone was trying to hurt or kill her.”

Well, if a person were skeptical, they could wonder if this incident influenced Jeremy. Sheila wasn't violent to anyone, she sounds scared and confused more than anything but she didn't attack anyone or pick up a weapon in any kind of threat.

[Caroline]

I stand suitably corrected , but he did say the bit about killing each other. Plus he was the one person who did not seem to stand up for Sheila and say she could not ha pave possibly done it. I thought he said violence under the surface . Those words definitely ring a bell. But it is some time since I have read the book. She also herself was afraid she would be violent towards the twins.

She was worried that her illness could be hurtful to others and I think that speaks volumes. Not sure how many times I have told that I would kill him. People say this al of the time but they aren't talking literally.

Colin had no reason to believe what he was being told was anything other than the truth. I guess he has a lot of feelings to come to terms with. If anyone would have been bewildered, it would have been Colin.

[Jan]

Found a post from skippy where he said Colin said Sheila had struck him.

[Jan]

She was worried that her illness could be hurtful to others and I think that speaks volumes. Not sure how many times I have told that I would kill him. People say this al of the time but they aren't talking literally.

Colin had no reason to believe what he was being told was anything other than the truth. I guess he has a lot of feelings to come to terms with. If anyone would have been bewildered, it would have been Colin.

Yes , so that goes for Jeremy as well. So that discounts his alleged threats against his parents then.

[Caroline]

Yes , so that goes for Jeremy as well. So that discounts his alleged threats against his parents then.

There is a difference between saying that you're planning on killing your family and using the term in the way most of us use it.

[David1819]

if you blind someone with science, you confuse them by using technical language that they are not likely to understand   But as I said....you can't do that to me. 

Regarding your other comment....Perhaps the home office have more information on the crime than you do!

I cannot understand why you feel the Police and all Authorities had a grudge against JB ...... they took his word for what had happened at the time, then Julie Mugford gave her statement....but she was apparently told what to say by the Police....why? their job was to solve the case regardless of who committed the murders. Yes, mistakes were made by the Police, but they were in JB's favour!

What kind of excuse is that? Its simple maths!

Very well. I put it into an easy chart for you. Comparing the development of hypostasis in hours post mortem by various experts and the mean upper limits and lower limits of those figures and compare them to the time required for JB to be guilty.

As you can see the time of death does not fit. If it doesn't fit you must acquit!

[Jan]

There is a difference between saying that you're planning on killing your family and using the term in the way most of us use it.

So now you be live Julie then? Because that's the only person who heard it in a particular context and not a through away remark.

[Steve_uk]

What kind of excuse is that? Its simple maths!

Very well. I put it into an easy chart for you. Comparing the development of hypostasis in hours post mortem by various experts and the mean upper limits and lower limits of those figures and compare them to the time required for JB to be guilty.

As you can see the time of death does not fit. If it doesn't fit you must acquit!

David is this the new slogan for your avatar?

I repeat the link I posted yesterday here:

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

[Jan]

David is this the new slogan for your avatar?

I repeat the link I posted yesterday here:

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Who are most authorities?

[David1819]

David is this the new slogan for your avatar?

I repeat the link I posted yesterday here:

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

As I have already pointed out to you, the reasons for a posssible delay in development do not apply to Sheila.

In fact one of the reasons does apply to June (old age) but that still has not prevented the obvious visual appearance in the photos of June.

Thus the time of death does not fit. If it doesn't fit you must acquit! 

[sami]

What kind of excuse is that? Its simple maths!

Very well. I put it into an easy chart for you. Comparing the development of hypostasis in hours post mortem by various experts and the mean upper limits and lower limits of those figures and compare them to the time required for JB to be guilty.

As you can see the time of death does not fit. If it doesn't fit you must acquit!

yes a couple of photos will get jb released

[Steve_uk]

Who are most authorities?

I suppose one takes internet links at face value.  http://what-when-how.com/forensic-sciences/postmortem-interval/

[Romeo]

David is this the new slogan for your avatar?

I repeat the link I posted yesterday here:

Most authorities agree that lividity attains its maximum intensity, on average, at around 12 h postmortem, but there is some variation in descriptions of when it first appears, and when it is well developed, i.e. confluent. Hypostasis begins to form immediately after death, but it may not be visible for some time. Ordinarily its earliest appearance, as dull red patches, is 20-30 min after death, but this may be delayed for up to 2, or rarely 3 h. The patches of livor then deepen, increase in intensity, and become confluent within 14 h postmortem, to reach a maximum extent and intensity within about 6-10 h, but sometimes as early as 3 h or as late as 16 h. Faint lividity may appear shortly before death in individuals with terminal circulatory failure. Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Good post Steve! I've posted the same kind of thing,  but David won't see the obvious, that Sheila had been dead for hours. I like his table though